State: Illinois
Court: 4th District Appellate
Docket No: 4-97-0240
Case Date: 10/08/1997
NO. 4-97-0240
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In Re: the Marriage of ) Appeal from
KARA SLAYTON, f/k/a KARA STRAPPE, ) Circuit Court of
Petitioner-Appellant, ) Peoria County
and (No. 91-D-109) ) Nos. 91D109
THOMAS JAMES STRAPPE, ) 91F253
Respondent-Appellee. )
--------------------------------------- )
In Re: the Parentage of )
BRANDON JAMES STRAPPE, )
KARA SLAYTON and JEFFREY SLAYTON, )
Petitioners-Appellants, )
v. (No. 91-F-253) ) Honorable
THOMAS JAMES STRAPPE, ) Joe R. Vespa,
Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:
Kara Slayton, f/k/a Kara Strappe, and Jeffrey Slayton
appeal an order of the circuit court of Peoria County granting
Thomas Strappe (Tom) visitation with their minor son, Brandon.
Jeff and Kara are Brandon's biological parents, but Brandon was
born during Kara's marriage to Tom. Kara and Jeff contend that
because Tom is not Brandon's biological father, he should not
have been granted visitation absent a "compelling reason" why he
should be permitted to interfere with their "constitutionally
protected parental rights." Kara and Jeff further contend that
the court erred in finding that permanent visitation was in
Brandon's best interests. We affirm.
Kara and Tom were married on July 12, 1986, and Kara
gave birth to Brandon on May 12, 1989. The family resided inElmwood, Illinois. Tom, having no reason to suspect otherwise,
raised Brandon as his son. Tom's first indication that Brandon
was not his natural child came in February 1991, when Kara
petitioned for dissolution of marriage, case No. 91-D-109. In
her petition, Kara alleged that no children were born of the mar-
riage. If Kara had filed her petition for dissolution of mar-
riage after May 12, 1991, she would not have been permitted to
question Tom's paternity. See 750 ILCS 45/8(a)(3) (West 1994)
(two-year Parentage Act statute of limitations). The trial court
granted dissolution of the marriage, reserved substantive issues
until later, awarded Kara temporary custody of Brandon and
granted Tom visitation. In March 1991, Jeff filed a paternity
action, No. 91-F-253, claiming that he was Brandon's biological
father. No action was taken on the paternity suit until April
1992, when the trial court consolidated it with the marriage
dissolution proceedings.
Jeff and Kara married on May 9, 1992, but lived apart
during much of the marriage. Kara lived in Illinois (with
another man, for a period) and Jeff lived in Missouri, then
Wisconsin. Tom continued to exercise visitation with Brandon on
alternate weekends plus two five-hour periods each week.
In October 1992, the court appointed a guardian ad
litem (GAL) to represent Brandon's interests. The GAL filed
paternity actions against both Jeff and Tom. In January 1993,
blood tests were ordered over Tom's objection that testing should
not be performed without first determining whether such testing
was in Brandon's best interests. The test results established
that Tom could not be Brandon's biological father and that there
was a 99.8% probability that Jeff was the father.
Jeff and Kara's marriage was dissolved in September
1993. Kara retained temporary custody of Brandon, subject to
visitation by both Jeff and Tom. (At the time of Jeff and Kara's
divorce, Jeff supported Tom's efforts to gain custody of
Brandon.) In September 1993, Kara moved for summary judgment on
the issue of Brandon's paternity. In April 1994, the trial court
granted summary judgment, ruling that Jeff was Brandon's biologi-
cal father. In May 1994, Kara and Jeff filed a stipulated
request that Kara be awarded permanent custody of Brandon. Kara
also filed a motion seeking permission to remove Brandon to
Wisconsin, where Jeff was now living. Kara and Jeff stipulated
that they contemplated reconciliation and possible remarriage.
The court ruled that because Tom was not Brandon's biological
father, he lacked standing to contest Kara and Jeff's custody
agreement. Accordingly, the court granted Kara custody and
permission to remove Brandon to Wisconsin. Based on the recom-
mendations of Dr. John Day, a court-appointed psychologist, the
court determined that it was in Brandon's best interests to
continue visitation with Tom, said visitation to occur every
third weekend. This visitation order expired in January 1995 and
all visitation ceased.
Tom appealed, contending that the trial court should
have conducted a "best interests hearing" to determine whether an
attack on his presumed paternity should have been allowed. Tom
further contended that the court erred when it determined he
lacked standing to seek custody of Brandon. The third district
held that, under the facts presented, it was no longer useful to
determine whether the paternity action was in Brandon's best
interests, but the trial court erred in finding that Tom lacked
standing. Therefore, the third district reversed the order
granting Kara custody of Brandon and remanded the cause to allow
both Kara and Tom to seek custody under section 601 of the
Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS
5/601 (West 1994)). In re Marriage of Slayton, 277 Ill. App. 3d
574, 660 N.E.2d 562 (1996).
On remand, Tom filed a motion for temporary visitation
pending resolution of custody. On March 28, 1996, the court
conducted a hearing on Tom's motion. Prior to the start of
evidence, the court ruled that Tom was entitled to reasonable
visitation unless Kara and Jeff met their burden of proving "that
visitation would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental,
moral or emotional health." 750 ILCS 5/607(a) (West 1994).
At the time of the hearing, Brandon was nearly seven
years old. He had been living with Jeff and Kara in Saukville,
Wisconsin, since August 1994, and he had not seen Tom for 14
months. Brandon was in first grade, doing well in school, and
participating in sports. Kara and Jeff both testified that when
Tom had last had visitation, August 1994 through January 1995,
the visits were quite disruptive to their family schedule. Both
parents worked full-time, and the visits periodically interfered
with Brandon's soccer and baseball activities. It is 270 miles
from Saukville, Wisconsin, to Tom's place in Elmwood, Illinois,
and the drive took 4
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies